Who to vote for?

[OlderGrower]

If I decided not to vote for either of them, I would give up the right to complain when the other one got elected, lol.

Talk about my bad logic... actually if I vote for Gary Johnson and EITHER Trump or Clinton are elected, I am the one who does get to complain because I did not vote them in. Your logic is... If I vote for a candidate and they suck I get to complain but if you did not vote for them and they suck, you do not get to complain. Now there is some typical REP/DEM logic right there my friend..lol

If you elect them then you own them not me

 

[TorturedSoul]

Err... No, I meant that if I chose to cast my vote for a candidate that has not a snowball's chance of winning this particular election, it would - in effect, if not in intention - be much the same as staying home that day. In truth, I give you credit for voting at all. I would happily consider voting for a third-party candidate - IF, that is, they had a chance of winning.

But the way to help ensure that a third-party candidate gets elected is to start years before the election, four or more, and work to see that his name is at least known to a majority of the voters, lol. And it wouldn't hurt if a high percentage of the other 64,738 (possibly slightly exaggerated ) third-party candidates had thrown their support behind him. As it stands now, they're like a herd of cats - or like so many drops of oil... spread out in the ocean.

If someone like me - who doesn't really care for publicity - could be "known" to around three quarters of a million or more people via forums (in a previous hobby, never mind), then someone ought to be able to work up some serious name recognition by effectively utilizing the Internet (to say nothing of television). IF they seriously want to become President instead of just slightly increasing their political "cred" and/or bringing a little publicity to one or more issues that they are interested in. The latter has traditionally been - and still is, to this day - the reason that most people become third-party Presidential candidates, and that is highly unfortunate. If the only people who "ran for President" were those who actually seriously intended to win the election, there'd be a lot less of them - and one (or more) of them might have a substantial chance of winning. That would have been especially true in this election, methinks, and I am rather sorry that things did not turn out that way.

IMHO, voting for a candidate who clearly will not win does nothing. Last I heard, there were no awards for the person who lost but had the highest number - or second-highest, I suppose - of votes among the losers. And, we are well past the time (perhaps unfortunately) when our Presidential election was set up so that the winner became President and the loser that had the most votes became Vice President.

Wishing to give your support to a candidate that you believe in is admirable. So is wishing to help show that you do not favor either of the two mainstream candidates. But, in practice, this could well mean the difference (if done by a lot of people) between Trump winning and Clinton winning. Instead, vote for the candidate - out of the two who have a realistic chance of winning the election - that you feel will do the least amount of harm (even if you happen to feel that person is Clinton - but I hope you don't, lol). If you want to help change things, become an activist - both on the Internet and in the real world. Speak out on forums that are chiefly concerned with politics (or which have a politics section). I would advise you to use a nom de plume that is different from any other that you go by when communicating on such forums, as I do. But then, again, I am paranoid.

If given the choice between being punched and being stabbed, I realize that neither choice is palatable. OtOH, when asked, I can respond, "Neither - I want a bowl of ice cream instead!" all I want to and it won't do a thing except give away my ability to choose (or, in this case, to help choose) which of the two unpleasant things I actually end up receiving... And, in that case, if what I receive is a lacerated liver, lol, I cannot really complain that I did not get a bloody nose instead. Now... at a time when I am not about to be worked over by thugs ... I can go out and look for the ice cream man. I can call all the local "Ice Cream Man" businesses and ask them if they would consider adding my street to their route. I can educate my neighbors on the benefits of having ice cream men drive by their homes so that they don't have to walk all the way to the grocery store and return with a sack full of melted ice cream, and to ask them to call those businesses and request that they send the truck down our street. I can even go to my local government and try to get them to provide a better business environment for potential Ice Cream Man businesses (and educate & encourage everyone else to do the same thing), and then research all the Ice Cream Man businesses in existence until I find the one that I feel is the best and offer that one my support. But... The time to do that is not when I'm already strapped in the chair, soon to be given either a punch to the nose or a stab wound. At that point in time, it's too late and my dreams of enjoying a refreshing ice cream... have all melted.

 

[OlderGrower]

1st off voting for someone who has a snowballs chance in hell is exactly how Donald Trump got nominated and had not the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders it would be a run off between 2 snowballs in hell. So just because they say someone does not stand a chance of winning is BS. They can win when enough people get tired of the same old BS and make a stand, apparently your not tired enough of the ole BS the Reps and Dems have been feeding us. Me, I have head enough BS, but if I get stuck with more BS for the next years, trust me, I will bitch because I have a right. I was tired of eating the same old crap and it will be people like yourself who will be forcing me to eat another 4 years of their crap.You on the other hand will have no reason to complain, you will get exactly what you voted for, more of the same.

 

[TorturedSoul]

1st off voting for someone who has a snowballs chance in hell is exactly how

...Bush won the election in 2000, lol? Judging by the national exit polls, had Ralph Nader not been a candidate, Gore would have carried Florida. (The Florida exit polls showed that Bush would have had a slight lead under the same scenario - but the sample size there was only 1,829, and with Nader's support in Florida being 1.63%, that equates to Florida's exit poll sampling only 30 Nader voters, so the national exit poll was likely far more accurate.)

1st off voting for someone who has a snowballs chance in hell is exactly howDonald Trump got nominated

Many people considered Ronald Regan to be a lunatic when he ran for President... and won. Me, I just figured he was living in his own version of reality, the one in which he had actually become that G-man that he had always wanted to be "back in the day." I was too young to vote, but I remember wishing that Carter had won a second term (or not had a hostile Congress during his first one).

So just because they say someone does not stand a chance of winning is BS.

Okay, fine, I officially retract any statement(s) that I may have made that a third-party candidate does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this election... A third party candidate DOES have exactly a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the Presidential election. How's that, lol?

I base that on - in addition to the fact that NONE of them have enough of a following - past election records. Remember Ross Perot? He was actually polling in first place at one point in 1992. He received 19% of the vote. And he won... not a single state. Not a single third-party candidate has won ANY states in over 45 years. In 1968, Wallace got 13.5% of the vote and won five states. He got 46 Electoral votes. No third-party candidate has won the Presidential election in over 150 years.

It was before the modern two-party era, but you might consider Abraham Lincoln to have been a third-party candidate when he won in 1860. He was a Republican, but that party (IIRC) had only been formed about six years previously. He ran against two Democrats (that party having split over the slavery / Popular Sovereignty issue) and a Constitutional Union one. Although the Constitutional Union party was, in name, a new party at the time, it was primarily made up (more or less) of former members of the Whig party. So... I am willing to call that election a win by a third-party candidate, if you like. But, again, that was in 1860.

They can win when enough people get tired of the same old BS and make a stand

Believe it or don't, but I agree. But it is not nearly as simple as you seem to think, that enough people will vote for one single third-party candidate in November to get that particular candidate elected. I don't think any will win any states. One might carry a state. Or... two. If this was a less sensitive forum and I had the money (because I wouldn't even bet on a sure thing if I didn't have the money to throw into the pot, lol), I would offer to bet you $100K that no one single third-party would carry as many as ten states.

apparently your not tired enough of the ole BS the Reps and Dems have been feeding us.

I am - but I am also a realist . I am also tired of the this Summer heat - but I am not going to put on my Winter coat in the morning before I walk outside, because I know that merely being tired of it does not change reality. Reality is that a third-party candidate cannot win this election. In that regard, it is - in every way - a lost cause. I don't know what else to say, lol. You can want in one hand and shit in the other - and see which hand gets full first.

If we had been more successful at changing things IN THE PAST... then there would have been some possibility of someone other than the two mainstream party candidates getting elected this time. But this one? It cannot happen. It literally CANNOT happen. Go ahead and start mourning that hope, for it is already dead.

And, once again, third-party votes in this election will only help Clinton get elected. If you are fine with that outcome... Well, I'll be a little disappointed - but as long as you know what the power of your third-party vote will actually be going towards when you cast it. And that third-party vote has the potential to be even more... significant in its insignificance than it was in Florida during the 2000 election. Why? Because in 2000, some third-party voters would (otherwise) have voted for Bush and some would have voted for Gore. But in this election the vast, overwhelming majority of third-party voters... would not vote for Clinton even if it was only a two-party race.

So I have to ask you this question: Between Clinton and Trump, which do you believe is likely to do the most harm to this country?

All votes against Trump in this election will - in their practical effect - be votes for Clinton. If you do not understand that statement, please take a refresher course on the Presidential election process and how the winner is ultimately chosen.

Speaking of which, here is something else of great significance to your argument: The only way that a third-party candidate can win the Presidency in this particular election is for him/her to win 270 or more Electoral votes. And that fact, alone, means that it won't happen. Yes, in theory, it would be possible for no candidate to receive a majority of votes - and to win anyway. But do you understand what it would require for a third-party candidate to win under that scenario? In case you are not aware, it would require - as per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution - that third-party candidate to beat both Clinton and Trump in a vote by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. And how many of those members are neither Democrat nor Republican, lol?

Believe me, I have been thinking about this stuff for years - and speaking out about it for years, and posting about it and debating it for years on the Internet. I was doing so when I had to use my buddy's account at the local college on the VAX/VMS computers because there was no "public" Internet access in my area, not even 300 baud local dial-up. I also posted about this stuff on Fidonet, if you remember that, and was doing so on local BBSs by the mid-1980s (and two non-local ones that I had toll-free numbers to and access on). Add in some assorted networks like CompuServe and the like back before I had Internet access. I was also fairly vocal in school.

I hope you are active - in some medium or other - as well. Because that kind of thing is a whole lot more effective than casting a vote for a non-viable candidate. But I digress.

As I stated, the only way for a third-party candidate to win is for him/her to win a minimum of 270 electoral college vote. Did you know that there is no Constitutional provision or federal statute requiring electoral members to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their states? Around 24 states have no laws about who their electoral members should vote for. Of those who do, several of them are merely advisory in nature ("shall be expected to vote for...") and in no way binding. Others only call for a (relatively small) monetary fine. A small number of those 24 sttes attach a criminal penalty. But not many of those 24 states consider an electoral vote against the popular vote of their state to be invalid (regardless of whether or not there is any monatary or other criminal "fee" involved). To put it bluntly, the Electoral College can, at will, disregard the will of the popular vote in a majority of states!

So... No, there will not be a third-party President this time.

The Electoral College was written into our Constitution - but it is an anachronism. It was designed to balance the states' and the peoples' interests. Of primary concern was the possibility of a nationwide election breaking down into chaos and confusion. This was before the emergence of national political parties and nationwide communications systems. Its time has passed, IMHO. There has, from time to time, been some effort to reform it. IIRC, that was true in Oregon in 2013. But so far nothing has been done. This is another area that I hope you are active in attempting to encourage change in.

I have hope for future Presidential elections. Possibly as soon as 2020, but I do not think that to be highly likely. Be that as it may, THIS election, IMHO, is all about damage control and, yes, of choosing the lesser of two evils. I did NOT arrive at this conclusion on a whim; I put a great deal of thought into every election that I am eligible to vote in (and into many that I am not).

 

[Dennise]

Yes OG... I'm a very conservative constitutional Republican.... As I posted earlier I have many other concerns for this election than mj... I have sons in the military... Well one just got out... I posted earlier that I have skin in the game and someone asked what that meant... It means my boy is in the army... Meaning who's in office could make all the difference in their lives.... HRC is not someone I want to be his commander and chief... I have been a stoner since I was 13... But the importance of that to me in this election is minimal.... I believe the things I have posted here to all be true so with that I think it best I'm out of here too....

 

[OlderGrower]

News flash... you are not the only one with "Skin in the Game" My son was a Navy Corpsman attached to a Marine Corp group plus I had nephews who also served in Bushes illegal unconstitutional wars. If you think you will get more support from Trump then HRC or any other candidate I suggest to you that you ask how much support Trump gave to the "Khan" family.

While I really want to vote for a 3rd party since I believe both leading candidates are bad for this country, but you both have convinced me, this election is about damage control and electing the one of the two leading candidates who will do the least amount of damage to this country. Guess I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

[TorturedSoul]

While I really want to vote for a 3rd party since I believe both leading candidates are bad for this country, but you both have convinced me, this election is about damage control and electing the one of the two leading candidates who will do the least amount of damage to this country. Guess I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

I want to vote for a third-party candidate, too. And I hope that there will come a time when such candidates are no longer considered to BE "third-party" candidates. A time when they will, mathematically, have just as much of a chance to win as any other candidate before their various stances on the issues are considered, and that those stances (as shown by their past words, actions, and voting records - instead of their campaign speeches) are what ends up causing people to decide who to vote for. I will continue to work for that, and hope you (and as many other people as possible) will, too.

I don't happen to agree with your opinion that the candidate (out of the two "major party" candidates) is the one who will end up doing the least amount of damage - but I could well be wrong in MY opinion. And... well... the difference could end up being largely an academic one <SIGH>.

I have been thinking that some of the more "out there" and frightening scenarios portrayed in some of the future-themed science fiction novels that I have read over the years which had a moralistic bent... have come to pass - or will soon do so. The only thing that keeps me from seriously worrying that there might be a revolution/civil war in the near future is that... not enough people really seem to care.

There is a new religion - or at least way of life - and it is called "apathy."

And ~TS~ mourns....